Public Bill Committee

[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]
Written evidence to be reported to the House
PR 132 Local Government Ombudsmen

New Clause 2

Brought up, read the First time, and Motion made (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.

Vernon Coaker: Good afternoon, Mr Chope. I welcome you back to the Chair and members of the Committee back to our last sitting. Unfortunately, judging by the Home Office programme, it seems that we will have more Bills, but I do not know whether we will all be members of the Committees that consider them.
Interestingly, I remember that when the Government were in opposition they said that it was ridiculous for the House to consider so many Home Office Bills in one year. I know that this is their first year in government and they are flushed with enthusiasm and excitement, but I remember being lectured at great length about being unable to scrutinise and plan such Bills properly—but that was in a different era.
The new clause is extremely important. Our debate on the Bill has been interesting—we have agreed with much of it in principle, but have sometimes disagreed, or required clarification, on its detail. That has not been the case with the provision for a single individual to be responsible for a police force, and the establishment of the police and crime commissioners. We will return, on Report, to the matter of one person being responsible for a huge geographical area, about which various concerns have been expressed by a range of stakeholders. It would be interesting if the Minister published all the responses that the Home Office received to that consultation, rather than only a summary. Publishing such a summary is usually a good way of hiding the fact that there has not been much support for a measure.

Nick Herbert: No.

Vernon Coaker: Perhaps the Minister will demonstrate that I am wrong by publishing all the responses.
The flaw at the heart of the Bill is that there is no proper check and balance on the work of the police and crime commissioner. I hear that concern everywhere I go. The Minister, people who surround the Prime Minister, and one or two others do not agree, but that does not alter the fact that the vast majority of people recognise that failure and its huge bearing on operational independence. Such concern is shared by the hon. Members for Edinburgh West and for Cambridge, judging by the number of amendments that they tabled to strengthen the power of the police and crime panel over the commissioner. The police and crime panel is a toothless watchdog. We have no draft of the memorandum of understanding between the commissioner and the constable on operational independence, which makes the concern even more acute.
People talk about operational dependence. I remind the Committee that the Metropolitan police have stated:
“Accountability is essential to securing an efficient and effective police service, as is the operational independence of Chief Officers.”
The Minister will say that he agrees, but those concerns are real. It has also stated:
“New governance structures must have operational independence as their overriding principle… Chief Officers must have the ‘space’ to do the job they were employed to do”.
Under the new clause, the Minister could say that he understands those fears and concerns, and knows what people are saying, but that they have no need to worry. He could say, “Don’t worry about it. I know there’s a problem, but the Bill sets up the new model in such a way that it won’t cause the problem people think”.
The Minister regards the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives as a dinosaur and its members as people who will not vote for their own demise at Christmas, people who are out of touch and standing in the way of the progressive nature of the new Government determined to bring democratic accountability to policing that has never existed before. I know all about the idealistic out-of-touch vision of where policing should go. Let us consider APACE, a body that the Minister listens to and agrees has greater validity than the Association of Police Authorities, although the hon. Member for Edinburgh West is a great fan of APA and often quotes it in support of his amendments. APACE says that
“There will be issues which the commissioner will consider legitimate in their governance but which chief constables will argue are a matter of operational independence. Examples include a promise to increase visibility of police officers in neighbourhoods or the use of sensitive counter-terrorism powers. Strong governance, together with the minimisation of potential conflict and confusion, will only be ensured by high quality and carefully crafted legislation.”
The new clause would give the Minister the opportunity to have the carefully crafted legislation wanted by APACE.
Paul McKeever, the chairman of the Police Federation, said that the
“commissioner should not be allowed to impinge on that operational side of policing. That is the sort of area that needs to be clarified as the Bill goes through Parliament, to ensure that there is an understanding and that we do not have bickering.”
The Association of Police Authorities, which I cannot resist quoting—notwithstanding the Minister’s view of its membership—said:
“The proposed system could therefore incentivize PCCs to seek conflict with Chief Officers”,
alluding to our earlier point about PCCs elected on a particular mandate to pursue a particular style of policing and to encourage chief constables to change how areas are policed.
What are we proposing? The new clause is meant in the spirit of helpful co-operation to the Minister. I shall put it on the record again that it is absolutely essential that the draft or even a draft of a draft of the code of practice defines the responsibilities of the police and crime commissioner, vis-à-vis the chief constable under the new model of governance, and that the Minister has confirmed that he is taking that forward.
Discussions are going on at the Home Office and, presumably, with ACPO and others to develop the draft. I accept that it is not an easy process, none the less it is an essential process. How much easier it would be for the House of Commons to debate whether the Minister has found a way of resolving the tension between the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable if we had the draft in front of us and understood some of the principles that he expects to operate under the new model. Will he give us some idea of the things that will be included in the draft and tell us about some initial thinking?
Will the Minister not just say that he expects the draft as soon as possible, but say when we can expect the draft of the draft? Notwithstanding our difference on the issue, I honestly believe that each member of the Committee is now interested in seeing a copy of the draft. When it comes to the Bill being debated on Report and beyond, people will want more information and certainly a copy of the draft of the code of practice. I understand the problems, but the chief constable of the West Midlands police authority said that it would help the Committee’s deliberations and the understanding of those outside Parliament if the code of practice were available.
The code of practice is of such importance, as is people’s concern about the politicisation of policing. They are worried across the board that the model will lead to politicisation. Under the new clause, when the Minister has moved beyond the draft code of practice identifying the operational independence of chief constables when dealing with police and crime commissioners, it should be laid before Parliament, so that hon. Members and Members of the House of Lords have the opportunity to discuss the draft, with its approval being subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That would give some reassurance to those who have articulated concerns about politicisation.
I do not want to be too long, so I will finish with this thought. Surely, if every police authority, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives, local authorities and individual Members of Parliament— virtually everyone—are united in their concerns and worries about the new model, the Minister should try to deal with that by adopting the new clause. The alternative is that the code of practice is agreed somewhere, but what scrutiny will Parliament or any Member have over it? Parliament should scrutinise it, because it is of such importance and is such a fundamental part of the new model that the Minister wants.
If the Minister rejects the new clause, it is incumbent on him to explain how the draft code of practice will be arrived at, who will agree it and what process will be followed to bring it about. I say again that I have respectfully and politely asked the Minister to accelerate the production of the draft, so that we can consider it. I cannot say how strongly I feel. I am opposed to the principle of the Bill, but I feel extremely strongly that the draft should be made available to us, certainly before Report, because Parliament is entitled to have it when considering something so fundamental. I respectfully ask the Minister again to tell us when we can expect the draft to be put before us, so that we can see exactly what the new code of practice will encompass.

Nick Herbert: Good afternoon, Mr Chope. I accept that that issue is important, and I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised it.
First, on the hon. Gentleman’s point about the number of criminal justice Bills, it is worth noting that the last Government presided over 50 such Bills, which was equivalent to creating a new crime every day between 1997 and 2010. There is, of course, a difference in approach, because the Protection of Freedoms Bill that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be piloting through this House is seeking to do the opposite; to look at where we can deal with unnecessary legislation and burdens and protect liberties. It is a fundamentally different approach. This police and crime Bill does not create new criminal offences; it seeks to secure greater accountability of policing. We are not introducing criminal justice Bills in the same way that the previous Government did.
I will not let the hon. Gentleman’s description of police and crime panels as “toothless” go. He is repeating this, but we had an extensive debate about police and crime panels during which I noted that the panels now have powers of veto in two key areas, as well as a lot of other powers. It is not possible to say that a body is toothless when it has the power of veto over a proposal made by a democratically elected figure, which the police and crime commissioner is. That is simply an inappropriate description. It is valid to argue that it should have more powers, but to say that it is toothless actually takes a rhetorical attack on police and crime panels rather too far.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of what he has called a code of practice on the operational independence of chief constables, and that has been an important debate in the Committee. I will not rehearse our discussion, but I will respond to what he is trying to secure through this new clause. First, I reiterate my commitment on Second Reading to introduce what I then called a protocol to govern this relationship. I said on 13 December:
“The Chairman of the Committee suggested that a memorandum of understanding might be the means by which that”—
in other words, operational independence—
“could be achieved. That is a good idea and the Government have already said that we will sit down with ACPO once the Bill is enacted and agree an extra-statutory protocol—I am sure that we can discuss these issues as the Bill makes progress--that will set out the terms of agreement to ensure that operational independence is protected. There is agreement between us and ACPO--it is important that the Opposition understand this—that we should not seek to define operational independence in the Bill. That is a matter for case law.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 769.]
So although the terms “memorandum of understanding”, suggested by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and “protocol”, which I proposed, having discussed the matter with ACPO, have been used interchangeably—I may, myself, have used the term “memorandum of understanding”—it is the proposal for an extra-statutory protocol to which I committed myself on Second Reading. I was clear then that what I envisaged was that we should negotiate that with ACPO once the Bill was enacted. I see no reason why we should not begin work on this protocol. Indeed, I have already invited ACPO to do so. It is important that we make progress with this.
I accept the force of the hon. Gentleman’s argument that this is something in which Parliament will take an interest during the progress of the Bill. I also understand the force of his argument that this is something that Parliament will wish to debate when it is agreed. I take both of those points. I cannot commit now to an absolute deadline for when this document will be agreed. I cannot commit to that, because it requires us to sit down with ACPO and others. I just draw to his attention the fact that the memorandum of understanding in Northern Ireland—governing the new policing arrangements—has been under discussion for 11 years. I appreciate that that is Northern Ireland and there are particular sensitivities, but it is still not agreed. I do not want to be unrealistic and set an artificial timetable that cannot be met.
I accept the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman tabled the new clause—that it would help the Government to make progress. It would be helpful to everyone if we could make progress with the protocol and that is what I am saying to ACPO as well. I made the concession to have such a protocol precisely because I wished to reassure ACPO, and others considering the proposals, that we were serious about ensuring operational independence.
We need to be careful about the content of the protocol and giving further clarification. I hold to what I said, which is that we are not seeking to define operational independence in the document. It is right that we maintain the basic architecture, as we do in the Bill, that chief constables have control and direction of their forces. That is restated in the Bill and we do not seek to define operational independence. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Chris Sims, the chief constable of the West Midlands force. In his evidence to us, he confirmed that he did not wish to see operational independence defined. I believe that that is still the view of ACPO.
So we need to be careful about how much detail such a protocol should have. The protocol should clearly define, for the benefit of the parties concerned, their roles and responsibilities in a way that makes it easier to understand—rather than having to simply read the legislation—and which also draws on historical precedent. For example, such a document might use the words “operational independence”, which are not actually used in any legislation about control and direction. As to whether the protocol should go into any greater detail, that is highly questionable. We would then trespass into the area of seeking to define a relationship and a mode of operation that has been debated for many years in the courts. Ultimately, should there be a breakdown, that would have to be settled in the courts and I do not think we would get anywhere by that.
The various different parties would like clarity—as much clarity as we are able to give them. Those parties are not just the chief constable or the police and crime commissioner. There are others in this new relationship too. The police and crime panels should have clarity about what their role is and what it is not. There are some who still believe that a police and crime panel should be about scrutinising a force. The protocol would have to remind police and crime panels that their job, as set out in the Bill, is to scrutinise the police and crime commissioner and his actions. The protocol, therefore, is intended to be a clarification of the responsibilities and working arrangements of the new bodies.
Another party to that relationship is the Home Office, and central Government. What is the role of the Home Office in the new landscape and of other agencies that form a part of the new national landscape; for example, the national crime agency? Once we start to consider that they too will be involved—the national crime agency is not involved yet as we have not introduced the legislation to create it, though we have announced that we wish to create it—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that this is not a document that will be drafted overnight. Equally, it is clearly a document that we need to have in place before 2012, because that is when those offices will take over and the elections will be held. That is in well over a year’s time, of course. I am not suggesting that it should take that length of time to agree, but it would be unwise of us to be pushed into an artificial timetable to draw up this document.
There is also the question of the extent to which the document is affected by debate in this place and in the other place. I want the hon. Gentleman to understand that I am not dismissing what he is saying. It is desirable that Parliament should debate this and that something should be available for further stages of consideration of the Bill. I am realistic about not committing to an artificial timetable that I might not be able to deliver on, because it does not involve only the Government. That is the point.
Finally, we could further consider whether the protocol should be a statutory code of practice. This is not statutory guidance that then becomes part of the definition of operational independence itself. That would be a real problem. We need to be clear on what this is not. We can come to whether there should be statutory approval of the protocol in due course, but we are not yet at a place where we can decide that. I am trying to recognise the force of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes; I am not dismissing them and I accept that he is making them in good faith. I want to make rapid progress with ACPO in drawing up this protocol. I recognise that it wants the protocol, too, and that it would be helpful to further consideration if we had a draft, but I cannot commit to a firm timetable at this point. Also, this should not be a statutory document subject to statutory approval before we have discussed the nature of the document further with the various parties. This is an ongoing debate, not the end of the debate.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the Minister for his reply. I will not return to the PCP. He knows my views on the PCP, and every time I say that it is a toothless watchdog, he gets up and explains why it is not. I did note that he said that it was a valid to comment to make, if someone thinks that the PCP should have more power, which is exactly my point—I think it should have more power, so it is obviously a valid point. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the protocol should not define operational independence. That is a generally accepted point. I also accept his point on not having an artificial timetable.
Before I return to the new clause, I understand that it will take a while to negotiate and come up with something that is not just a draft, but a proposal for discussion and adoption. However, in discussions in Committee, on Report, and when the Bill goes to the other place, we need to see what it will look like. I am not asking for a document to be put before Parliament for agreement; I am asking for a document that will give us some idea of what it will look like and some of the things that it will contain. That would be helpful for the Minister, rather than his talking about this nebulous idea of a protocol, without our being sure of what it is. I know that that will be difficult, and that it will take time to put together and that there will be disagreement and debate. If such a proposal can be drafted, however, it would be helpful.
The Minister recognises the force of what is being said in the new clause, which goes to the heart of the Bill—he will know that from his meetings and discussions with lots of different people. Notwithstanding the model that he is setting up, if he does not get it right, there will be problems. He has agreed that Parliament should be involved in a process—he did not commit himself to what that is—of discussions on the protocol when it is finally put together. I look forward to that, because I think it is important.
I will press the new clause to a vote, because seeing the division of opinion in the Committee on the new clause is an important way of ensuring that we, as a responsible Opposition, keep pressure on the Government to ensure that some of the commitments made by the Minister in what was a reasonably helpful response in many respects are met.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

Brought up, and read the First time.

Julian Huppert: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I had the great pleasure of being able to do drugs with the Under-Secretary on three consecutive days. Two days ago, we discussed the details of the membership of the Committee, and yesterday we discussed the details of specific drugs. Today, I would like to talk about some of the principles underlying the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
There have been a number of discussions over many decades about how successful has the approach in the 1971 Act been. Has prohibition worked? Opposition Members raised concerns about that in yesterday’s Delegated Legislation Committee. The original idea of the 1971 Act was that it would not take long until the drugs were not around, and that the supply of such classified drugs would simply stop. That has definitely been a failure: there is no doubt that there are illegal drugs and large black markets around. I therefore believe it is time to start thinking about whether we are going in the right direction.
A lot of work has been done. One of the previous incarnations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs produced an extremely good and detailed report, which suggested that more work should be done to look at alternatives. Someone called Cameron even sat on that Committee and supported its conclusions. [Interruption.] He was younger at the time. There is a time to start looking at what is happening. I accept that there will be many different opinions in Committee and outside on what a better solution could be and on how well the 1971 Act is working.
The new clause aims not to push the debate in one way or another, but to say that there should be an independent assessment. We regularly assess and review all sorts of aspects of legislation. I think the Minister referred earlier today to the fact that all legislation is kept under review, and that should apply to this matter as well. An independent assessment of the issue might be helpful to understand some of what is happening.
I am pleased and delighted that, during the debates in the previous couple of days, the Government made it clear that they are committed to an evidence-based drugs policy. That has to be an extremely good way to go. The new clause would reaffirm and strengthen that commitment. It would put regular reviews on a statutory footing and ensure that they happen independently. It would also reflect the speed of change in this policy area. Two days ago, there were comments on the fact that the Misuse of Drugs Act dates back to 1971, and that various other provisions are simply outdated. An independent assessment would enable us to find out and check that the legislation is fit for purpose and that we have learned from what has happened in the years since 1971.
An independent assessment would give the Secretary of State a firmer basis on which to base policy judgments, which would be helpful. We have had a commitment to evidence-based policy in, for example, advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but it is harder to do that on a wider spectrum without large-scale measures. As a result of the assessment, I hope that we might be able to come up with something that works better. We might come up with something that would be cheaper in terms of police and medical support time, and hopefully something that may further reduce harm. We might not, but it would be worth at least starting to think about how we could assess the Act to find out whether we are on the right lines and whether there is a better alternative that would help more people around the country.
Much as I would love to hear the Minister agree so that we nod the new clause through, I am not expecting that and I do not plan to press the measure to a vote. I hope that in somewhat slower time the Minister will be able to think through the options and think about whether there is a way for Parliament to start such a review process that would apply to this and future Governments. We could have rational discussion on what is the best way, rather than being tied in to a decision that was made in 1971, which seemed very sensible and appropriate at the time. It has simply not worked as well as people thought it would at the time. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

Clive Efford: The hon. Member for Cambridge has raised an important point. I, too, will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. The hon. Gentleman is asking for an opportunity to air concerns about drug regulation, which, as he has pointed out, is rapidly changing and developing. Professor Iversen referred to 40 legal highs that are out there and being advertised on the internet, which is a cause for concern. He is not expecting 40 temporary drugs orders to be implemented to try to tackle them, but that demonstrates the need for us to keep the policy under review.
We have had differences in the past. Under the previous Government, there was some controversy in relation to Professor Nutt, who published opinions that went beyond his remit as chair of the council. More recently, there was the controversy involving Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, who similarly had some strange opinions that were not entirely in keeping with his role on the council. Such controversies indicate that it is right for Parliament to have an opportunity to review the position on drugs regulations and legislation.
Professor Iversen asked for certain measures to be included in the Bill, particularly on the need to consult before a temporary drugs order was imposed, but that is not what the Government intend. They intend to deal with the matter through the protocol. But how can Parliament police the protocol if we do not have an opportunity to discuss how drugs regulation and legislation are operating? A review reported back to Parliament would provide that opportunity. After all, there are areas of public service that we regularly debate in Parliament, and we get an opportunity to review what is taking place.
The hon. Member for Cambridge has also highlighted how the 1971 Act was intended to bring abuse of drugs to an end. Clearly, that has not happened. There is a difference of opinion about whether we should legislate at all. The Under-Secretary was present yesterday for the debate in which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) expressed some strident views about drugs regulation, and the futility of it, and how it is not had any implications. In Parliament there is a wide range of views on how we should approach drugs regulation and monitor how effective it has been. In his evidence to us, Professor Iversen suggested that, regarding the classification of drugs under categories A, B or C and the recategorisation of cannabis from B to C, then back from C to B, there was a constant decline in the use of cannabis from 2000, and the change of classification had no impact at all.
There are areas that we need to keep under review and it is right for Parliament to do so. Professor Iversen pointed out that drugs are being manufactured out there that are going straight from the chemistry laboratory to being advertised on the web for people to use. That is a concern, so a review of how the legislation is operating with a report to Parliament would be beneficial.
We should all be grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridge for proposing this probing new clause. It is important that Parliament should have oversight of how things are going with regard both to regulating drugs and how the legislation is being applied, and to the activities of the ACMD and its relationship with the Government. That can be strained at times, as both this Government and the previous Government have experienced, so I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

James Brokenshire: We have a good relationship with the ACMD. As a Minister, I have attended two of their council meetings, which is probably two more than many Ministers have visited the ACMD in years gone by, although I know that some Ministers have done so. It is an important relationship, and I value the advice that the council provides to Government, as reflected in the working protocol that hon. Members have received as part of the Committee’s considerations. The way in which we look at that advice underlines the evidence-based approach. I would stress the importance that is placed on such advice and the statements that have been made in the Government’s new drug strategy.
It might be helpful if I clarified the purpose of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. For four decades, that Act has provided the UK with a coherent legislative framework to meet its international obligations for effective measures to restrict the availability of drugs and their misuse, to protect public health and welfare. In our judgment, it is not in the interests of the UK to challenge its international obligations or to signal its intentions to depart from them.
In the UK, the Misuse of Drugs Act has established a drug classification system based on drug harm, which is well recognised and which provides the criminal justice system with a stable and enduring system that continues to serve its purpose. There is no system of control, or even a system of structuring drug-harm classifications, that is obviously better than the current one. The Misuse of Drugs Act also provides for the independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, whose independent expert advisory role to successive UK Governments in shaping the UK’s drug policy is widely acknowledged. Its statutory duty is to keep the situation in the UK under examination in respect to drugs, and it advises on measures which ought to be taken to prevent the misuse of drugs.
The impact of domestic and international prohibition policy on levels of consumption and production globally is key in any meaningful assessment and analysis of the 1971 Act. We do not accept that meaningful figures can be ascribed to the likely public and individual health cost or that it is possible to properly assess the impact of drugs on productivity and industry or on industrial or traffic accidents. Those fundamental difficulties point up the question of whether the task is an appropriate use of research funding. In our judgment, it would not be a proper use of public money. The UK’s successive drugs strategies have already provided the opportunity to review periodically and develop our approach to drugs issues on key aspects of this policy area, such as prevention, reducing supply and effective recovery from dependency.
While the legislation is important, it is only one part of a broad social policy area. To make a comparison with some of the issues that we discussed yesterday, I have to admit that we had slightly more focused discussions on tapentadol and amineptine, but there was still an interesting debate on broader social issues, such as education and public health. Matters need to be viewed in that context, which is why we are developing an evaluation framework to assess the effectiveness and value for money of the current drugs strategy.
We also recognise the multiple aspects of drugs issues and are examining the community reintegration of drug-using offenders, for example, as part of the sentencing review. Proposals to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act focus matters in a slightly narrow way. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, but the underlying issue is that the area is complex with a number of different factors, and focusing resource attention on a three-yearly review of the Act is perhaps going in the wrong direction.
We prefer to consider the effectiveness of the new drugs strategy and to have a proper framework. In so doing, I hope to promote a debate on drugs policy by looking at the evidence and taking advice from the advisory council. We want to drive the issue forward and deal with the three matters highlighted in the drugs strategy of reducing demand, restricting supply and promoting recovery. I am not seeking to make a direct partisan point, because the mistake has been happening for several years. For too long, we have not focused enough on how we can take people down the path to recovery to lead meaningful lives and be reintegrated into society so that we do not have the revolving door of offending, and all the pressures that that puts on communities and the Government as a whole.
I welcome this small debate, as I welcomed the debate that we had before Christmas on the legalisation of drugs. While I did not agree with the approach that was taken, it is important that we continue to debate such matters, continue to challenge and continue to look at the evidence. That is an approach that I am comfortable in taking, so I hope that, for those reasons, my hon. Friend will seek leave to withdraw the motion.

Julian Huppert: I thank the Minister for his comments as I do the hon. Member for Eltham, who is coming from a similar direction on such issues. I agree that the matter is complex, and I very much welcome the Minister’s helpful focus on recovery and treatment. Several countries in Europe treat drugs policy principally as a matter for public health rather than principally a matter for the criminal justice system. That is an interesting balance, and I am delighted that the Government are moving more towards the health-based approach rather than criminalisation. That is excellent.
Drugs policy operates on several levels, from the details of which drugs to classify to how the ACMD works. They are all important, and I am delighted that the Minister has such a good relationship with the ACMD and takes its advice so seriously. However, it is still set in a certain direction. The ACMD is not completely free. It has certain tasks, and its role is to issue advice in that direction. Similarly, the strategy is a wider document. It covers a range of issues, but the approach in the strategy is underpinned by the legislation around it. I hope, at some stage, that that will be looked at, and the Minister will be aware of the serious interest in such matters by Members from all parts of both Houses. Obviously, I shall not press the new clause to a Division. I am sure that the Minister will continue to listen to the voices of those who are interested in such matters. Perhaps at a later stage he will support a similar motion or even propose such a provision himself. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Brought up, and read the First time.

Diana Johnson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Accountability of licensing authority—

Diana Johnson: The two new clauses return us to the issue of the late night levy, on which we had a fairly lengthy and at times heated debate.
New clause 4 would require police forces, in areas where the late night levy applies, to provide details of how it has been spent and the amount of additional policing that has been made available in that area, and to report that to the local authority. The report would be a written record that had to be produced each year, within 12 weeks of the end of the levy period. It would have to include details of the amounts received through the levy and spent by the police in providing policing, and details on the impact of the levy on crime and disorder in the area covered. That is the purpose of both new clauses. New clause 5 deals with the responsibility that would be placed on the licensing authority, and it is almost a mirror to new clause 4 in that the requirements are identical. The licensing authority would also need to provide a report within the same time scale.
The new clauses are meant to be helpful to the Government, because we know that the coalition is committed to transparency. It wants to open up spending and to ensure that everyone is aware of where every penny is spent. The new clauses fit well with the Government’s intended aims. They also fit well with the localism agenda, which we have also referred to at various times in the Committee, and the need for local areas to be clear about what is spent. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government might find the new clauses very attractive, given his comments about transparency.
The key issue is accountability. As we know from the previous debate, at the moment a licensing authority has an opportunity to decide whether it wants to have a late night levy in its area. We have discussed how it would cover the whole geographical area of that local authority. Under the proposals set out in the Bill as it is drafted, if a late night levy is taken out by the licensing authority, there is no obligation to ensure that the money raised is spent in that area, or is specifically used to fund additional policing or resources for that area. It almost seems as if the late night levy will go into the general pot of expenditure for the police, the local authorities and other bodies that might be able to access that funding.
The new clauses attempt to achieve transparency, so that people can see how much money is raised by the late night levy. The impact assessment mentions that between £9 million and £15 million might be raised by it. If the new clauses are accepted, a clear figure for that would be identified, as would specific details on how much policing is provided.
I can see the Minister of State looking at me over the top of his glasses. He will recall that we had an interesting discussion about how much additional policing will be provided from the late night levy. In that earlier debate, I requested information about how the 70:30 split specified in the Bill for the distribution of the levy had been arrived at, and what the evidence base was for the decision. We had a rather heated exchange about that, and I am still unclear how the Government reached that formula. It would be helpful if the Minister enlightened us today on that 70:30 split.
The new clauses would allow us to be clear about what the late night levy will deliver for businesses and organisations that will have it imposed on them. How much will the levy deliver for them? How many additional police officers will they see in the area of the levy? How many additional cleaning services, for example, will be provided by the local authority with the money that is allocated to it? Those are the key reasons why the new clauses would be helpful to the Government and to the late night levy. They will provide the transparency that I am sure the coalition wants to see in the Bill.

James Brokenshire: As we enter the final phase of our consideration of the Bill, I will try to be helpful to the hon. Lady and positive towards her approach. Although I absolutely agree with the need for transparency, I hope that I can explain how transparency already operates in this case. Her approach strikes me as bureaucratic, given the measurements, the mechanisms, the reporting and the factors that she has outlined. There is a risk that a chunk of a late night levy would be spent just complying with all the new reporting requirements. I take her principal point on transparency, and I will set out why her approach to the administration of the late night levy is not necessary.
We have discussed police and crime commissioners at great length in Committee. The money given to the police from the late night levy will go into the police fund for the force area, held by the local PCC. The police and crime panel will be able to request any documents of the PCC, such as details of the police fund, that are not operationally sensitive and do not compromise national security. They may be scrutinised publicly, and may include any documents on spending money earned through the late night levy. The ultimate accountability of the PCC will be at the ballot box, where the public will cast judgment on how effective they have been in delivering effective policing. The transparency processes already in place will provide an important check and balance.
The new clauses also reflect concerns regarding licensing accountability: how licensing authorities spend their portion of the levy. Following an announcement by the authority that it intends to adopt the levy, the public will be aware of the proportion of the net revenue that it wishes to retain. It will hold a consultation before adopting the levy.

Stephen McCabe: How does the scheme that the Minister describes compare with current procedures for identifying the funding that premier league clubs contribute to the cost of policing for football matches? There must be a precedent for how we do that.

James Brokenshire: I am happy to look into that. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a ready response, but I am happy to reflect on his interesting point and consider it further. I promise him that I will look into it.
It is important to talk about the consultation that the local authority will undertake before adopting the levy. The consultation will consider the services that the licensing authority intends to provide with the money it shall retain from the levy—all those questions will be consulted on as part of the process. After the consultation, the authority will write to all affected premises to inform them of its final decision. As part of the process of even establishing the levy, the local authority will set out, in quite a lot of detail, the relevant aspects that will sit alongside. Therefore, having a further mechanism would be bureaucratic in a way that the levy was not intended to be; it is intended to be quite speedy and efficient. The consultation process will draw out a lot of the important transparency issues.
I do not step back from the principal issue that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has sought helpfully to highlight. However, there is a process that will provide an important part of such transparency. The licensing authority, as an integral part of the council, will also be directly accountable to the public for the scrutiny that will be applied. The design of the late night levy is efficient, and light on administration and process. The necessary transparency is adequately provided in the chapter of the Bill under discussion and through the police and crime commissioner.

Diana Johnson: I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments about consultation and transparency, but what about proposed subsection (3)(b), which requires the report to set out details of the impact of the levy? What opportunity will local authorities and police forces have to measure such impact? How does he envisage that happening?

James Brokenshire: That is a powerful exposition of how crime mapping would be a direct method for highlighting and drilling down on policing issues. Transparency will be provided, and police and crime commissioners will be focused on performance and what is happening in their communities. Equally, information will be available to local authorities and their relevant partnerships.
I get the hon. Lady’s point about transparency, but we think that it is being addressed in other ways. We will continue, however, to examine and reflect on the need for information to be readily available. I hope that the hon. Lady is assured that we take the matter seriously, and that other measures are available.

Diana Johnson: When late night levies are brought into effect around the country we will certainly want to see how they work and whether they are having that direct impact. On hearing the Minister’s comments, however, and his assurance about keeping the matter under review, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

Brought up, and read the First time.

Diana Johnson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause relates to fees that local authorities levy on people who make licensing applications. It is drafted to allow licensing authorities to determine the amount of fee to be paid at a local level. Under the new clause, authorities would be required to publish the amounts of such fees and would need to have regard to any guidance produced by the Secretary of State. The proposal also relates to temporary event notices, on which we have debated amendments at length.
The licensing authority would deal with a licensing application, and the proposal attempts to ensure that the full cost of such applications is recovered by the fees that are charged. The new clause takes account of instances in which local authorities and local licensing committees decide to waive fees in specific circumstances, so it would provide discretion.
The proposal is all about the localism agenda and the approach, which I understand the coalition Government are taking, to ensure that local authority areas make decisions that best fit their particular needs. When I was thinking about proposing the new clause, I was conscious that local authorities in the country are different, with different experiences of the late-night economy and licensing. Areas such as Camden or Westminster are very different from ones such as Scunthorpe, and they have very different needs.
Returning to the issue, this is about reflecting that and allowing flexibility. I understand that the Government have stated that they are committed to enabling licensing authorities to set licensing fees based on full cost recovery. As the Bill stands, however, there are no new fee structures included in any of the clauses setting out further regulations. That is particularly disappointing given that some of the Bill’s proposals will add new burdens on councils. Including a new fees framework in the Bill would be a quick and simple way to bring about the implementation of the localism agenda and of full cost recovery.
In the current economic climate, there is a real imperative to make this important change as soon as possible, bearing in mind the major cuts we are seeing to local authority budgets, with some local authorities facing 28% cuts. A new fees framework would also simplify the need for the late night levy that we have just been discussing and that we debated earlier, as money could be recovered specifically by a local licensing authority in relation to the late night situation in its area. The new clause would provide flexibility and a framework for giving licensing authorities a discretion to set appropriate fees for their area, and to reduce or waive fees for individual premises or events, such as charities or those benefiting from small business rate relief.
Will the Minister consider the precedent on fees at the cost-recovery level, which is set out in the Gambling Act 2005? We have referred to that Act before—it is very helpful, because it is in force and we can see how it is operating. Under the Gambling Act, there is a discretion to set the fee level within nationally set bands. I know that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have in the past undertaken a high-level review of the premises and licence fees set by licensing authorities in 2007-08. The Department’s overall conclusion from that review was that there is no justifiable concern, from either an industry or licensing authority perspective, about the level of the fee maximum set by DCMS. It sounds as though local authorities were acting reasonably within the bands; they were not all rushing to get to the highest possible level.
Secondly, the introduction of the new system appeared to be working well around the country and has produced a good spread of premises-licensing fees among licensing authorities with no obvious systematic setting of fees at the maximum. On that basis and with the experience of the Gambling Act, it is worth considering how the new clause could help the localism agenda that the Government want to promote. It would also help deal with the varying and very difficult circumstances around the country. The new clause is worthy of consideration in relation to the Government’s approach to licensing.

James Brokenshire: I broadly agree with the intentions behind the hon. Lady’s new clause. As she may know, in my response to the consultation I said:
“We intend to enable licensing authorities to set licensing fees based on full cost recovery”.
Since then I have been working closely with colleagues across Government to be sure that we achieve that aim in a way that is fair to all sides. There is widespread agreement that the current fees do not cover the legitimate costs of licensing authorities in discharging their functions under the Licensing Act 2003. Licensing fees have not been increased since the Act came into force. I also agree that setting a fee nationally that meets full cost recovery for authorities throughout the country, despite different costs and circumstances, would be a difficult task that certainly does not fit with the Government’s approach to localism. However, at a later stage, I intend to table an amendment introducing locally set fees based on full cost recovery.
Although the new clause has a similar aim to our proposals, it contains some features that we would not wish to pursue. I will explain. First, the new clause enables only some of the fees under the Licensing Act 2003 to be set locally—those relating to premises, licences and temporary event notices. However, fees relating to personal licences and club premises certificates should be set locally as well, because costs for such processes are also subject to local variation and potential deficits against income. To omit them would be inconsistent.
Secondly, the new clause contains no provision to enable constraints to be imposed by the Secretary of State on a licensing authority’s ability to set fees. A nationally set cap on fee levels is needed, albeit I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s point, and fee payers would be reassured that licensing fees are not a blank cheque. I intend the cap to be set in regulations, after consultation on the appropriate level.
Thirdly, the new clause contains provision for the licensing authorities to waive any fee. Such an unconstrained power would, potentially, not be fair if fees were to be based on cost recovery. That is because the waiver by an authority of one or more fees would mean that it was choosing to incur a cost and recouping it from other fee payers. To illustrate the point, if the authority waived 25% of its fees, hypothetically, it would be clearly inequitable for other fee payers to fund the deficit.
On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured that we intend to follow through on our commitments. I recognise the spirit in which she moved the new clause but, given my reassurances and the issues I have raised about it, I ask her to consider withdrawing it, in the knowledge that we are dealing directly with the issue and hope to introduce changes to the Bill later.

Diana Johnson: Local authorities often seem to cross-subsidise certain services with other payments received, so I am not sure I agree with the Minister about waiving fees for licence applications.
Local authorities are now, genuinely, in some difficulty with their budgets, up and down the country, so I understand what the Minister said about returning to the issue shortly. I urge him to do so as quickly as possible, to give some certainty to local authorities and to ensure that whatever regime is brought in will deal with the real problem of the setting of fee levels.
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7

Brought up, and read the First time.

Diana Johnson: Thank you, Mr Coaker—[ Interruption. ] I apologise, Mr Chope. I think it is because we are on the home straight now and getting a bit demob happy.
The new clause deals with an amendment that we would like to make to the objectives set out in the Licensing Act 2003. As discussed at length in the debate on licensing law, the licensing authorities must always have regard to the licensing objectives set out in the Licensing Act when dealing with licensing applications, renewals or reviews. We have discussed the issue of health and the current view that we ought to have more regard to the health of people in this country, and to the effects that alcohol can have on it. At the moment, our licensing objectives are silent on public health and its promotion.
The new clause would allow a fifth objective within the Licensing Act: to protect and improve public health. That fits well with clause 104, which we discussed right at the beginning of the licensing section, which added primary care trusts and local health boards as responsible authorities, so that they could make their views clear to licensing authorities when deciding on licence applications, renewals and reviews. We debated how difficult that would be, because health was not one of the objectives that must be considered by licensing authorities, yet the PCT and the health board can comment on the other objectives.
The new clause ties up nicely with clause 104. It makes some sense of the important role that PCTs and local health boards could play. The coalition Government are devolving public health responsibilities to local authorities, so a lot of attention will be paid to this area. People are very concerned about health and alcohol. We only have to look at The Guardianto see the headline, “Alcohol policy in tatters as health experts revolt”. We all have an interest in ensuring that we have the best possible policy on alcohol and that we give information and support to people who drink. We also need to take steps to encourage sensible drinking.
The Government’s current position on alcohol is rather confused and muddled. Putting this new clause into the Licensing Act 2003 would send a clear message that the Government are serious about ensuring that licensing authorities take health into consideration when making decisions on applications. That is why we tabled this clause. The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 makes health one of the objectives that licensing authorities have to look at. It is interesting to note that Scotland has looked at other issues relating to alcohol and the policies that we ought to pursue. It would send a clear message if the Government were minded to accept the new clause and make health one of the considerations that must be taken into account.

James Brokenshire: It may not surprise the hon. Lady that I do not agree in any way, shape or form with her characterisation of the Government’s approach to alcohol and how we are seeking to bear down on the harms caused by it. Those were, in large measure, caused by the manner in which the previous Government took to this. Our accident and emergency departments and police have to respond to the problems of alcohol. That is why changes to licensing are proposed in this Bill.
On that note of discord, I will seek to strike a note of accord on the importance of public health. We see merit in making health a material consideration under the Licensing Act. I know that it has been customary in other sittings to refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave her some moments ago, but in this case, it was some days ago. This point came up last Thursday. I said:
“We see some merit in adding prevention of harm to health as a licensing objective, but we want to do it in a considered way, alongside wider work to address the harms of alcohol to health, which is why we indicated in our consultation response that we did not intend to legislate at this stage but would consider the best way to do so in the future.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2011; c. 528.]
I repeat those words because they directly relate to this new clause. It needs careful consideration because, if it was introduced without that care, it might not be applied in a focused manner. One might seek to argue, for example, that because a particular part of a local authority area suffered from high levels of deprivation or health harm, one could apply licensing policy differently there. Is that an appropriate way of doing things? Such issues need to be examined carefully when applying an approach, which we broadly accept and acknowledge. The Government consider the issue to be important, but it needs to be examined more closely in the context of developing public health policy within local authorities.
While I agree with the sentiment behind the new clause—continuing the discussion that we started last Thursday—the Government believe that the issue requires further consideration and work, which we will do. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause in the knowledge that the Government are focused on it and seized of it. We are considering it further in the context of promoting public health and addressing the underlying issues and health and social harms that are caused by alcohol.

Diana Johnson: I have listened to the Minister. My big concern is that the Government’s general approach to public health seems to be what is called a “nudge approach”, where people are nudged to do the right thing—

Chris Ruane: And a wink-wink.

Diana Johnson: Indeed. People are being nudged to do the right thing and not drink too much, on the basis that it will all be okay eventually. I worry about that approach. We have seen in recent months and years hard scientific evidence about what can be done to tackle alcohol abuse.
I have heard what the Minister said, and I assume that we will have a further licensing Act or an alcohol Bill at some point, to which we will need to look forward. I am minded to consider returning to the issue on Report because it is genuinely a big issue for the country. On the basis of what the Minister has said and the possibility that I will bring this back on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Brought up, and read the First time.

Matthew Offord: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 11—Youth rehabilitation orders: alcohol monitoring requirement
New schedule 4—‘Alcohol monitoring requirement
“An alcohol monitoring requirement Any person specified under section 212A(1).”.’.
New schedule 5—‘Youth Rehabilitation Orders: Alcohol Monitoring Requirement
“An alcohol monitoring requirement Any person specified under paragraph 24A(1).”.

Matthew Offord: I tabled the new clauses and new schedules to introduce a pilot compulsory sobriety scheme in London. They would introduce a new sentencing power through an alcohol monitoring requirement—AMR. The new power would allow courts to impose a requirement on an offender to abstain from alcohol and be regularly tested to ensure compliance as part of any community or custodial sentence. If the offender failed the test, there would be a quick and coherent process of apprehension—immediate arrest, a night in a police cell and reappearance at a magistrates court.
The new clauses and new schedules are compatible with the scope of the Bill, as they would provide the courts with additional powers on alcohol-related behaviour to complement those of police and licensing authorities. They are also consistent with the objectives of the Bill. The AMR would ensure that alcohol-related violence was tackled not only at the point of sale and supply, but by changing behaviour through clearer punishments.
London experiences disproportionate levels of alcohol-related crime compared with the rest of the country. That poses a huge threat not only to the safety of Londoners but to their general well-being, especially for those who live and work in boroughs with prominent town centres. It also has huge cost implications for the Metropolitan Police Service, the NHS and borough budgets, diverting increasingly scarce resources away from those with genuine need. Although several sentencing powers and penalties are currently available, alcohol-related crimes remain a huge problem and the number of alcohol-related hospital admissions is increasing. The alcohol monitoring requirement could result in rehabilitation for the individual, reductions in repeat offending and the use of custodial sanctions and, most important, a wider impact on society as it would reaffirm that alcohol is not an excuse for criminal behaviour.
The consumption of alcohol aggravates and perpetuates many forms of crime. The proposal could be taken further and used to address town centre violence. A compulsory sobriety scheme could offer support in many cases of violence against women and girls, especially domestic violence. Based on keeping the offender at home with a family and in employment, such a scheme could work in relevant cases, and might go some way to improve conviction rates, where victims are concerned about their partner or the father of their child going to prison. It would also be beneficial on the release of an offender.
To sum up, the three objectives of the alcohol monitoring requirement are to reduce the number of alcohol-related incidents, especially violent incidents; to reduce the cost of alcohol-related crime to statutory services, including police, health and local authorities; and to support a long-term shift in public attitudes to the use of alcohol by making a clear statement about the acceptability of behaviour surrounding alcohol consumption, supported by clear consequences.

Julian Huppert: Would the sobriety test be something that someone could opt to have as part of the requirement or would it be imposed on them without their agreement? Would it be tied up with rehabilitation processes?

Matthew Offord: I hope that the legislation makes it clear that the test would not be foisted on any individual. An individual would have to accept the requirement to undertake the sobriety test. It would not be compatible with someone who had alcohol problems; that would simply be a waste of time. But it would be enforceable on an individual for whom alcohol played a significant part in their behaviour, especially in domestic violence and other alcohol-related crimes.

Diana Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman reassure me on my understanding of the new clauses? First, do they limit the conditions that already exist on the use of alcohol treatment orders—that is my reading of the conditions set out in the new clauses? Secondly, I note that the Government are consulting on rehabilitative outcomes at the moment. Earlier in the month, the Minister talked about what outcomes would be useful, and how we should look at dealing with alcohol and drug misuse. Is the proposal not putting the cart before the horse? Will it not be better to wait and see what the Government’s consultation comes up with, and how that might fit with any amendments?

James Brokenshire: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and the deputy Mayor of London on introducing the proposal for a sobriety scheme. The Government certainly support new and innovative ways of tackling alcohol-related crime and disorder. I have met the deputy Mayor to hear more about that proposal, and the issues associated with applying a South Dakota-type scheme under our law. Officials from my Department and the Ministry of Justice will continue to meet him to explore his suggestion, because we want to encourage local initiatives and to work with local agencies and the Mayor’s office to develop policy proposals in more detail.
It will be important to develop a clear business case for the proposal, and to ensure that it is targeted, effective and affordable. We will then consider how the aims of such a scheme might be accommodated into sentencing legislation, ensuring it is proportionate and fits with British structures. So we will continue to discuss with the Mayor’s office the benefits and best practice of the scheme which has operated in South Dakota, recognising that there are differences between the American and British legal systems. We will therefore consider how a sobriety regime could be instituted here and what benefits it might provide.
I do not propose to comment in detail on the new clauses that my hon. Friend has tabled. Suffice it to say that some issues of detail will need to be examined. There will need to be a detailed examination of the cost benefits and establishing how the proposals will fit within the criminal justice system and the practical operation.
This is an interesting proposal that deserves further consideration as part of our approach to alcohol-related crime and breaking the patterns of offending. So we will keep this issue under review, and I will continue discussions with Kit Malthouse, the deputy Mayor and his team. We will examine the proposals in further detail and how the pilot might be operated.
I am sympathetic to the objectives of the proposal and, with the assurance that I have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon that we will continue that discussion, analysis and examination, I hope he will withdraw the new clause. I thank him for raising this important issue this afternoon. As this will probably be my last contribution to the debate in Committee on this Bill—I am sure everyone will be most grateful for that—I thank Committee members for their contributions and for the constructive manner in which Opposition spokesmen have raised a number of points to improve the Bill. We look forward to continuing to engage with them in a constructive way as we move forward with the Bill.

Matthew Offord: I hear what hon. Members have said on both sides of the debate, especially the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North. I do not see AMRs as a replacement for drug treatment orders; I see them as being in addition, and in addition to some of the other sentences that are available to the courts and also to the prosecution service.
The AMR could work as part of a suspended sentence as an alternative to incarceration, or as part of a community sentence. It could be a useful tool to focus on the violence against the person and criminal damage which have been seen in many of our town centres and local communities.
In addition, I would like to see the scheme used in conjunction with other legislation for young people. It could be integrated into the intensive surveillance and support order, which is already available to the court as part of the youth referral order.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend the Minister’s comments. I believe that this is a good proposal. Perhaps it is not appropriate for this Bill. I will look for alternative legislation in which we can take it forward. I would therefore like to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 3

“Police areas and police forces”

“The City of London”.

“Police ranks”.

“City of London”.

“General provisions”.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 6

“Appeals relating to complaints dealt with other than by investigation

“Appeals: the relevant appeal body

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Ordered,
That certain written evidence already reported to the House be appended to the proceedings of the Committee.—(Nick Herbert.)

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Nick Herbert: May I take this opportunity, Mr Chope, to thank you and Mr Benton for your chairmanship of the Committee. I thank those who have worked so hard behind the scenes to ensure the smooth operation of the Committee. I thank the Clerk, of course, and the people who have been painstakingly and patiently transcribing our proceedings and keeping abreast of things, even when the Opposition spokesman and I were not. We are very grateful for their help. I thank the Doorkeepers, who did not have too difficult a job to do. For very obvious reasons, Government Members were present at all times to ensure that we were able to carry the day. I would particularly like to thank the Home Office officials who have been here to support the Government. They have worked very hard to ensure that we have been in a good state with the Bill, which is a priority in government legislation. They have been a great support to Ministers. I thank them very much for their work. It is hard work for officials to keep up with the pace of amendments that are tabled. They often have to work very hard and very late, and I am grateful to them.
I would like to thank all members of the Committee for the way in which we have discussed the legislation. I know it is a commonplace at the end of Committee proceedings to say, “We have had a good debate and we have considered the matters well,” but I genuinely think that we have had a good debate. We have got to the heart of the issues in the legislation in relation both to policing and to the alcohol provisions. The Government are pleased that the integrity of our proposals has remained intact. Nevertheless, we have been able to make a number of improvements to the legislation. Ministers have conceded that important points have been raised, including by the Opposition, and we have undertaken to go away and give further consideration to them. Having said that, we have had full consideration of the issues. We have not been constrained by time, nor have we had to curtail debate. Its constructive nature will be helpful to those outside this place who are concerned about the issues and want to ensure that we are addressing them fully, so I thank Committee members for the way in which we have debated them.
I would particularly like to thank the lawyers. Where would we have been in consideration of the Bill without the depth, expertise and, indeed, quality of the free advice that we so regularly received? Even though some of the advice was not legible, it was nevertheless immensely gratefully received.
We meet here in this Committee room—I just noticed towards the end of our proceedings—under the portrait of Sir Robert Peel, a great Conservative Prime Minister before the idea of Liberals was invented. He was a social reformer, a repealer of criminal law and also a Home Secretary and founder of modern policing. Sir Robert Peel’s dictum,
“the police are the public and the public are the police”,
and the principles that he established, by which we have policing by consent and a professional modern police force, are ones to which we and the police force continue to subscribe today. I regularly evoke Peel’s principles as we find our way into describing how modern policing should operate. It seems fitting and timely that we should conclude our Committee proceedings under Sir Robert’s watchful gaze.

Vernon Coaker: I want to start by agreeing with everything that the Minister has just said. I particularly thank you, Mr Chope, and the other two Chairs, Mr Streeter and Mr Howarth, who chaired a couple of sittings when you were away on other business, for the way in which you have chaired the meetings. I join the Minister in thanking all the staff who have helped proceedings of the Committee, including the Doorkeepers and Hansard. I also mention Mr Rhys, who has been very helpful with the amendments that we have tabled and with giving professional advice on ensuring that they at least conform to the rules and regulations of the House. I also thank the other two shadow Ministers, the Whip and the Back Benchers. It has been extremely helpful at times to have two minutes to find where I am while they make a contribution. I also thank them for the validity and rigour of their contributions. I am grateful for the help of all my hon. Friends.
I agree with the Minister on the quality and standard of our debate. There is a big difference between us, but I have always thought that we can get angry about the principles of Bills, without getting angry with each other. That usually makes a huge difference. When I first started teaching, I once called a pupil, “You stupid kid,” and it caused a bit of a row with the parents. I was told by an older teacher, “Don’t call the kid stupid, call what they did stupid.” The point I was going to make was exactly the same, but not with the word “stupid”.
In all sincerity, I have appreciated the way in which the Minister has conducted the debate and discussions with me, and I hope that we have improved the Bill. This is slightly tongue in cheek, but I thank the Liberals for demonstrating something that I had never seen before. They moved amendments, and then voted against them. That was amusing to us. The hon. Members for Edinburgh West and for Cambridge are new Members of Parliament, but have contributed significantly to the deliberations of the Committee. Having slightly taken the mick, I should say that their contribution was important and interesting. I also thank the hon. Member for Northampton North for his advice all through the proceedings of the Committee. He must be good at it, because at the end the Minister started to try to steal my legal brief.
We have scrutinised the Bill and the two Whips have worked extremely well to ensure that we had time to discuss it. Hopefully, the scrutiny that the Committee has given it, whether we agree with all the Bill or not, at least helps to improve some of the detail. We look forward to continuing the debate and discussion on Report.

Christopher Chope: I, on behalf of my fellow Chairman, thank you for your kind and generous comments. Thank you for the respect that you have shown to the Chair throughout. I add my thanks to the Clerks, the Doorkeepers and to the shorthand writers for all the work they have done. This Committee has been conducted in an exemplary fashion, with good humour throughout, which has facilitated a proper discussion of the Bill. The only sympathy I will express is for the only Committee member who has not been able to utter a word. I express my thanks to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth for being here throughout and listening to the proceedings.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Committee rose.